Saturday, March 31, 2018

"Yesterday we saw 30,000 people; we arrived prepared and with precise reinforcements. Nothing was carried out uncontrolled; everything was accurate and measured, and we know where every bullet landed".

Well, they landed their bullets in or through 17 people's bodies, plus an unknown number among the ~2,400 wounded. We also recall they accurately-and-measuredly shout a youngster fleeing from them in the back. A while later, someone at the IDF probably realized they were admitting

war crimes, and the tweet was removed.

(credit goes to blogger Yossi Gurwitz: and to B'tzelem for the screenshot)

Notice that New York Times headline put the Israeli murder as part of "clashes". Notice that Western media never use "clashes" even in cases when governments which are not aligned with the US are engaged in conflict with armed rebels (like in Venezuela when protesters used violence). Notice that my local paper, Modesto Bee, gives the source of deaths of Palestinians to Palestinian sources as if the murder of Palestinians was in dispute. They never say: Israel claimed that two Israelis were killed.

Yesterday news as quite symptomatic. You can take it as an example of the hypocrisy of Western (government, academic, and media) rhetoric on Palestine. Notice the utter silence of all those who have been shedding crocodile tears over the Syrian civilian victims. All those who called for NATO attacks on Libya and Syria (and other places) in the name of humanitarian concern went silent yesterday. Their ostensible humanitarianism stops at the border of Palestine, thereby exposing the hollow arguments. Worse, look at the statement issued by Human Rights Watch yesterday. This organization has been rightly exposed in the Arab world as a mere arm of Israeli propaganda and the propaganda of Western wars in our region. Notice that the statement referred to Israeli massacre as "policing demonstration" and it seemed to disagree with Israel only on the number of Palestinians killed, not on the killing itself. The statement even referred to unfounded claims by Israeli occupation to use of violence by unarmed Palestinians and even provided justifications to Israeli occupation army to use gunfire on demonstrators under certain conditions. Kenneth Roth (HRW director) usually tweets around the clock and yesterday had one or two tweets in which he used the most polite and mild language possible. When foes of the US uses gunfire (whether against civilians or armed groups) he automatically refers to that as "slaughter". Notice that he never refers to Israeli war crimes as slaughter. The word "war crime" was not used by HRW all day yesterday. This is the organization which calls cases when a Palestinian steps on the foot of an Israeli soldier a "war crime". Ken Roth was busy reporting about alleged government crimes in Venezuela. This is the man who is obsessed (according to previous reports on him on this blog-search it) with what he calls "pro-Israel donors" to his organization, which basically dictates how this organization covers up and beautifies Israeli war crimes. Human Rights Watch should have been invented by Western war apparatuses long before it was founded. IT has been a great gift to colonial practices and thinking. If the killing yesterday was by a government not aligned with the US, HRW would have called for Security Council Meeting and ICC action.

Thursday, March 29, 2018

This is an astounding and humiliating interview. I understand that Corbyn wanted to deny that he is anti-Semitic (and there is nothing wrong for someone to deny accusations of repugnant anti-Semitism if there are grounds). But in order to prove that he is not anti-Semitic he does what classical Western Christian anti-Semites do: they basically conceal their anti-Semitism by going overboard in providing support for Israeli occupation and war crimes. He does the same in this lousy interview. Now he simply wants a two-state solution: his views here are no different from those of Blair, Bush, and even Netanyahu. He even expressed willingness to meet with Netanyahu. He allowed the interviewer to lie and fabricate and to claim that Hamas and Hizbullah have expressed an urge to kill all Jews. In fact, both movements have come out publicly in recent years against anti-Semitism (Hizbullah more than Hamas, I have to say), and yet Corbyn allowed this Zionist to define the matters of debate and to put him on the defensive. I made wonder: is he really not anti-Semitic? Because if you are not, you should never be forced to switch your views like this. I have always told Arabs: never ever trust Western leaders--no matter how left they are: just look at Tsipras in Greece and his embrace of Netanyahu despite years of strong stance in favor of Palestine by his group. Western leaders--on the left and the right--will give up on Palestine for the right price. All of them. What price did you pay, o Jeremy Corbyn?

"“The group, which has been described by former members as a 'sex cult', claims to be a self-help organization that operates centers in US, Mexico, Canada and South America. It emerged last year that the Dalai Lama was paid $1 million to speak to 3,000 NXIVM followers and place a khata - a traditional ceremonial Tibetan scarf - around Raniere's neck.”" (thanks Amir)

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

""In the end I wish to tell those influenced by the vanquished leftist ideology that we will deal with the West, and we will benefit from its superior civilization and its accomplishments — both its military feats and its other cultural achievements. These mainly deliver deterrence to our communities and also enhance welfare and services. As for you, your media, your intellectuals, and your criticism, these are nothing but the groans of a defeated force as it falls in the battle of civilizations.""

I was reading the itinerary of Muhammad bin Salman in the US: both Democrats and Republishing are rushing to prostrate. There is even a private dinner with Thomas Friedman, and a meeting with Elliott Abrams. Oprah is meeting with him. Plenty of US Zionists are no his itinerary.

What Shai Feldman does is typical of all US Zionists: they conflate the dynastic rulers of the Gulf with the Arab people, so that you don't really know when they generalize about Arab public opinion that they are really talking about the potentates and their entourages. Here he says that Israel is no more an anathema in the Arab world and mentions his visits to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. He was indeed in Saudi Arabia where he spoke (in a closed session without press announcements) at a conference at King Faisal Center. He later was supposed to speak (privately) at the American University of Kuwait, but when news of his appearance leaked there was such an intense protest that the entire event was actually cancelled, and his exist was rushed for fear of growing protests. Here is the announcement of BDS-Kuwait about what happened.

"MIT and Harvard students, as well as local activist groups such as Massachusetts Peace Action, led a protest against Mohammed’s visit outside Lobby 7 at noon Friday. The protest attracted between thirty and fifty participants, who held signs with slogans such as “No Saudi War Criminal at MIT” and chanted “What do we want? Peace. When do we want it? Now.” AChange.org petition started by an organization called Just Foreign Policy also gathered more than 6,000 signatures. The petition called for MIT to cancel Mohammed’s visit, alleging that the Saudi bombardment and blockade of Yemen essentially amounted to using starvation as a war tactic. Students submitted the petition to Reif’s office Friday."

"A heavy security presence accompanied the crown prince during his Cambridge visit Saturday evening. Nearly 30 security vehicles and roughly 10 motorcycles lined Quincy St., which security officials kept closed to vehicle traffic for more than an hour while the crown prince remained inside the faculty club. An armored tactical vehicle also parked next to the Barker Center on Prescott St."

Monday, March 26, 2018

Chief Saudi regime propagandist, `Abdul-Rahman Al-Rashid, maintains that John Bolton is not extreme at all but that he in fact speaks for all Arabs. I am not kidding you. You can find the English translation of the article in some Saudi regime propaganda bulletin board.

He is only partly lying below. Saudi Arabia was indeed asked by the US to help in the combat of communism and socialism worldwide and they did the job but they had their own agenda as well. They wanted to combat Nasserism and leftism in the Arab world for their own reasons."“Mohammed said that investments in mosques and madrassas overseas were rooted in the Cold War, when allies asked Saudi Arabia to use its resources to prevent inroads in Muslim countries by the Soviet Union.”"

The menu of the Saudi-American friendship dinner in DC is an insult to Middle East cuisine. Shrimp with Baba Ghannuj? Filet of Beef with Tahini and Garlic? Why not mix dates with bacon while you are at it?

At the personal level, I met and liked the director of HRW office in Beirut. But politically, I have been claiming for years that this organization office in Beirut is an unofficial member of the March 14 media and propaganda spectrum. I visited his Facebook page today, and this struck me:
1) they held a joint press conference with the Minister of the Lebanese Forces militia party. Can you imagine HRW daring to hold a joint press conference with a Hizbullah minister, or even with an Amal minister? And even about trash matters? No way on earth. They would never ever dare.
2) He retweets the musings of a political candidate who was part of the Hariri propaganda apparatus and is known for her staunch support for the Saudi regime. She is the candidate who before leaving Hariri TV to run for election, was handpicked by the Saudi regime to visit Saudi Arabia and to falsely claim that Hariri was not held against his will in Riyadh. Can you imagine he retweeting the musings of a reporter for Al-Manar TV, for example?
3) He posts articles by columnists in Saudi regime media. Can you imagine him posting articles by columnists of Iranian regime media?
4) He takes sides on the debate on normalization with the Israeli occupation enemy and rejects normalization and publicly called on people to not boycott Spielberg and said that Spielberg's donation to Israel as a reward for its war on Lebanon is no big deal and should be considered a mere act of charity. Can you imagine him ever daring to justify a donation to Syrian regime relief organizations? Would he dare say that?
5) He in fact engages and attacks Al-Akhbar. I dont have a problem with that at all and I see things at Al-Akhbar I don't like (and there are people at Al-Akhbar who can't stand me and don't like what I write) but how come he never ever engages and attacks the pro-Saudi regime media in Lebanon? For your information all the media in Lebanon EXCEPT ONE NEWSPAPER are subservient to the Saudi regime. At one point he is arguing with Al-Akhbar, and because his Arabic is so embarrassingly weak, he misunderstands the Arabic saying: آخر الدواء الكيّ
and he assumes that this saying is meant literally. That was hilarious to read actually.

Thursday, March 22, 2018

John Bolton is the first US official with facial hair hired for a high post in government in many years. In fact, one of the strongest objections that Trump had about him was his mustache. Read more on this matter from an academic perspective.

“The great political criminals must certainly be exposed, and preferably through ridicule. Because above all, they are not great political criminals, but the perpetrators of great political crimes, which is something utterly different.”

Look at this story, it identifies Syrian regime and Russian when they bomb, but does not mention that Syrian rebels did the bombing of Damascus. It leaves the impression that the identify of bombers of Damascus are unknown.

Yesterday, Hasan Nasrallah became the first head of an Arab political party to publicly champion the rights of female domestic workers and people of special needs. In response, I am sure Human Rights Watch will say: but he is sending missiles to the Huthis. It is high time that the issue of female domestic workers becomes a national priority for all Arabs. Their mistreatment is a regional disgrace.

Jörg from Berlin wrote me this: " In January the German parlament passed a declaration that every attempt to boykott Israel would be considered antisemitic etc. Activists are facing a lot of problems, for instant it is difficult to find rooms for meetings and congresses etc.".

Wednesday, March 21, 2018

""Haykel described Mohammed as an “optimist by temperament,”a pious man who drinks Coke Zero and has the retail political skills of Bill Clinton.“He shakes hands, he remembers names, he doesn’t talk down to people.”"

Never has a visitor to the Oval Office been insulted in this manner. Trump covered the Saudi Crown Prince with boards to show arms sales and to underline the true nature of the relationship between the two countries. And the Crown Prince laughs.

"I was one of about 500 Iraqis in the diaspora — of various ethnic and political backgrounds, many of whom were dissidents and victims of Saddam’s regime — who signed a petition: “No to war on Iraq. No to dictatorship.” While condemning Saddam’s reign of terror, we were against a “war that would cause more death and suffering” for innocent Iraqis and one that threatened to push the entire region into violent chaos. Our voices were not welcomed in mainstream media in the United States, which preferred the pro-war Iraqi-American who promised cheering crowds that would welcome invaders with “sweets and flowers.” There were none."

By the way, in the 60 minutes interview, the Arabic of MbS was not translated literally. It was edited from Arabic and improved in English sentences. I suspect that MbS propaganda office arranged for how own translation.

Many of the local Lebanese correspondents of Western media tend to be Western-educated individuals who are not generally deeply rooted in Arabic culture. For that the AP obituary and this New York Times obituary really missed the point about her. New York Times writer identified her as an "activist". She was not really an activist. What ever soft liberal feminism was gleaned from her novels.

It published this picture but it didn't identify the others. They are from left: Emily Nasrallah, Jamil Jabr, Halim Barakat, Ghassan Kanafani, and Yusuf Habshi Al-Ashqar. It was too much for the paper to identify Kanafani.

Sunday, March 18, 2018

US Media rule: when an Arabic speaking, pro-US despot is interviewed on US TV, the interpreter is somebody who has a soft voice and an American accent. But if the Arabic speaking despot is not an ally of the US, the interpreter has a very rough voice and a thick Arabic accent.

“From the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the poisoning of Vietnam with Agent Orange, to the military contamination of Iraq, to the millions of cluster bombs fired at Lebanon in 2006 by the US-sponsored state of Israel - many of which failed to explode on impact and thus still pose a deadly hazard to children and other civilians - it seems there are plenty of ways to indefinitely prolong unnecessary human suffering.” (thanks Amir)

Of course, there are people who leave their Islam or who ignore the obligatory rituals just as there are people who leave their Jewish or Christian religion. But Western media, like this stupid article in the Economist (there are too many stupid articles in the Economist as of late), makes it as if this is peculiar or exclusive to Islam. And look at this passage: "While the penalties for apostasy can be high in the West, they are much more severe in the Muslim world... An atheist who recently appeared on Egyptian television to debate a former deputy sheikh from Al-Azhar University was dismissed by the host and told that he needed to see a psychiatrist." I don't know about you, but being kicked out of a TV talk show hardly counts as a "severe" punishment.

“As the Americans approached the village, some of the men murdered people working in the rice fields or walking along the roads. Once the soldiers entered the village, the killing became systematic. They exercised every imaginable form of barbarism. GIs threw hand grenades into homes and underground shelters. They herded large groups of people together and forced them to lie on roads or in drainage ditches, where they were executed en masse with automatic rifles. Other civilians were shot individually. Some Vietnamese were killed only after being clubbed, tortured, stabbed, and raped. Some GIs mutilated their victims after killing them. It was not a spontaneous spasm of violence. The Americans took their time. The massacre was almost leisurely, methodically carried out over a four-hour period. In the midst of the carnage, soldiers took breaks to eat and smoke.”

“Join the Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace and Justice on Friday, March 16th for our annual community potluck to honor Rachel Corrie and celebrate fifteen years of Palestinian solidarity and community organizing!” (thanks Amir)

This is the most cruel and callous endorsement of Israeli war crimes that I have seen. He basically is saying that US need to devise methods to pull out Americans from Lebanon in the case of war with Israel because Israel is planning an all-out war against Lebanon's civilians and its infra structure. Read the last book by the man on Realism and Democracy: he devotes the book to the subject of democracy in US foreign policy only to admit that in fact the administration he served never bothered ever with democracy and that the Bush administration only mentioned and in passing one issue with Saudi Arabia: the Western Christians in the Kingdom and their right to worship. That was it.

There is so much Western and Israeli investment in Muhammad bin Salman that if he falls a lot in Western policies and wars will fall with him--at least in part. Of course, nobody is more opportunistic than Western governments and Israel: just as US abandoned so swiftly Muhammad bin Nayif, its loyal servant for many decades, they will abandon quickly this MbS if he falls. The story about him placing his own mother under house arrest is big. It shows that a man is willing to violate not only the standard conventional thinking and policies and orientations of the Saudi regime, but even the common traditions and social norms of society in Arabia. The fact that he can't trust his own mother because he fears that she may advance the fortunes of her other sons, tells you that he is most insecure. He has dealt with his insecurity in two ways: 1) by relying on US and Western support no matter what he does as long as he serves Israeli interests and Western economic interests; 2) by being ruthless inside the kingdom and against his own royal family. The story just now that the members of the "Saud Al-Kabir" within the royal family indicates that there is at least a sign of deep dissatisfaction. And as Mujtahid observed: this branch is known for ruthlessness. The National Guard was built and cultivated by King Abdullah and later his son. I can't see that all of them would swiftly switch allegiance. I can't see how MbS could sustain his method of rule. It is based too much on external support, fear and little by way of domestic support. The promise of theatre and sleazy "art" from Lebanon is not enough to make people forget the oppression they suffer under and the bad economic situation of the Kingdom. The grand promises of MbS will follow the dictates of the law of diminishing returns. Every season he will fail to deliver and then he will decree bonuses to employees or new subsidies. How long will that last. He could have easily established a much more secure rule if he is not too paranoid and if he was a bit more deferential to the norms of the family. Not a pretty picture coming out--for him and for those banking on him.

Thursday, March 15, 2018

Add another name to the long list of Syrian rebel groups: there is a group called Hurras Ad-Din (Guardians of Religion) which split off from Hay'at Tahrir Ash-Sham. The new group insists on allegiance to Al-Qa`idah. Wait a few days and Liz Sly, the worst foreign correspondent who ever worked in the Middle East, will declare the new group to be feminist and democratic.

I see the lousy Western correspondents in Beirut throwing in their reports estimates of casualties in Syria and attributing them to "UN". But correct me if I am wrong: did the UN not early on in the Syrian war announce officially that it won't be providing estimates of casualties in Syria because of the difficulty of counting? The UN abandoned the effort and yet there are reports attributing estimates to the "UN". Which is another way of providing legitimacy and credibility to the estimates provided daily by Rami Abdul-Rahman from his home in the UK: don't laugh. On a clear day, you really can see Syria from UK, all stereotypes about foggy UK notwithstanding.

I posted the video a few days ago and now we have confirmation that the Arab in the video being met by Hitler in the Berghof is none other than (the Libyan) envoy of King Abdul-`Aziz, Khalid Al-Hud Al-Qarqani. Here is the background about him and his mission to Hitler.

To be honest with you, no foreign intervention in a local election can impress me after reading (years ago) Ropes of Sand: America's Failure in the Middle East, Wilbur Eveland. Read this book and see what the US did to win an election in...Lebanon of all places. If I don't hear about briefcases full of cash, I dont call it a real intervention in an election.

Of course, you are not supposed to question any story or narrative or tale spun by Western governments. It is against the rules and ethics, I know. But: to what extent the story about her is true? If it is not true, I don't think that it was her fault as it was the Western governments and media that wanted that story to be true in order to justify films, books, documentaries, Nobel, and various Western government official statements and photo opportunities. Was she really targeted when she was 14 or 15 by the Taliban because of her educational advocacy? Why is it not mentioned that she and two other girls were shot by an unknown gunman when they were boarding a school bus? Why not mention that two other girls were also injured? Why did the story become an assassination against one girl only? And why did the story in Western media later change? From an unknown gunman to a story of the gunman boarding the school bus and asking for her personally (before he proceeded to shoot at not one but three girls). And there was a letter by a Pakistani Taliban but he claimed educational advocacy was not a reason but her defamation of the Taliban. This happened after the story because big. Also, under pressure from Western governments, the Pakistan government arrested 10 people but later released them and conceded that there was no evidence to their involvement. If this story was one which served regimes opposed to the US, all Western media would be assigning investigating units to look into the story but this won't happen in this story. Yesterday, I read that she said that people in developing countries consider the West to the "the ideal". When she says something like that you realized: if Malala did not exist, she had to be invented. How could you after this question the tale about Malala? Again, I am not ruling one way or another but the story should be looked into.

PS I may have been misunderstood as I heard from a loyal reader: no, I did not in any question whether she was shot. Of course, she was shot. That can't be disputed. I said that she was shot but along with two other girls on the bus.

Sunday, March 11, 2018

Most likely, Shaykh Yusuf Yasin, advisor to King Abdul-`Aziz of Saudi Arabia. No, not Yasin. Possibly another advisor, Hafiz Wahbah, but the latter wore glasses. No, it was yet another advisor, Khalid Al-Hud.

I was very sad to wake up to the most unpleasant news of the passing of Saba Mahmood. She was a very influential scholar in the field of anthropology, Gender and Middle East studies, and a very nice person to know and talk to. I first met Saba in Beirut, not in Berkeley. She emailed me and suggested that we meet there during one of her trips to Lebanon. And we met at a cafe in downtown Beirut. We stayed in touch then in Berkeley and she once cooked a great (southern Indian) meal for me (she was an excellent scholar and a great cook) at their home in Richmond. Her book, Politics of Piety: The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject, is in my opinion one of the most original books on gender and the Middle East in many years. Her book had a great influence on how I thought and taught issues of gender and Islam. I saw how loved she was by her students at UC, Berkeley, where she had a loyal following. It was fitting that her last post dealt with BDS. Our last communication--as typical of the age of social media--was on Facebook. Our last conversation was about the problematic views and stances of Syrian poet, Adonis. My sincere condolences to Charles, her family, friends, and all her students out there.

Comic by Terry Furry, reproduced from "Heard the One About the Funny Leftist?" by Cris Thompson, East Bay Express

As'ad's Bio

As'ad AbuKhalil, born March 16, 1960. From Tyre, Lebanon, grew up in Beirut. Received his BA and MA from American University of Beirut in pol sc. Came to US in 1983 and received his PhD in comparative government from Georgetown University. Taught at Tufts University, Georgetown University, George Washington University, Colorado College, and Randolph-Macon Woman's College. Served as a Scholar-in-Residence at Middle East Institute in Washington DC. He served as free-lance Middle East consultant for NBC News and ABC News, an experience that only served to increase his disdain for maintream US media. He is now professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus. His favorite food is fried eggplants.

The comments that appear in the comments' section are unedited and uncensored. The thoughtful and thoughtless, sane and insane, loving and hateful, wise and unwise ideas that they contain do not represent the Angry Arab. They only represent those who write them, whoever they are.